Marcus Fuller: Minnesota Gophers might sink in Bigger Ten

Donate To GopherHole
Goldmember said:
I have no doubt that will be the perception. But I don't think it is the reality at all. Look at the "Top 3 football schools" from each division:

Over the last 10 years Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska have a combined winning percentage of .65.

OSU, Michigan and Penn State have a combined winning percentage of .69.

But even this slight advantage to the East is 100% becuase of the Buckeyes, who have been .80. If you were to reduce their winning percentage to the same as the next most successful (Wisconsin... not Michigan), then the Top 3 in the East would be only .54, which would be substantially worse than the Top 3 in the Central.
Click to expand...

Well thats also because Michigan has had a few historically bad years under DickRod. I would not count on that continuing very long. Michigan is a helmet school and historically has been a power. I would expect them to rebound in a big way in not too long. Maybe not with DickRod at the helm but you can count on them being a national power at some point soon. Look at the winning percentages over the last 30 years and get back to me (10 years is too small of a sample). Add ND to the mix and its even worse.
 

RedPoo said:
Evidently, you don't.

This argument is asinine. I've never been called stupid so many times by someone who's defending such an obviously incorrect belief.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look around, you're really the only person on the board (that's posted at least) that thinks this, so how is it "obviously incorrect"? Sorry, dude, you're wrong on this one, but I do find your persistence amusing.
 

RodentRampage said:
Your position depends on treating winning the conference as if it were a random event. The problem is that it is not. You admit earlier that there is some validity in the possibility that the Gophers could sneak into a championship game, but then you dismiss it for a position which treats it as a purely random event.

If I get into a fight with Mike Tyson, there are two possible outcomes: either I win or he wins. However, this does not mean that they are equally likely.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's partially true, but partially necessary in any discussion of what the conference might look like years in the future.

Also, the other side of the argument is discounting the obvious advantage of not having to play an extra game against a good team for the championship. In an undivided conference, a team has to have a better or equal record (over 8 conference games) than 10 other teams, and often they will not have to play the top one or two other teams in the conference to get there. In a divided 12 team conference, a team would likely have to have a better conference record than 6 other teams, but has to win an additional game, against a team that is guaranteed to be good. The effect of the extra game, and the extra team, is HUGE to your chances of winning.

So, yes, because of the split, Nebraska had a shot at the Big 12 championship last year when they obviously weren't the best team. But they had to beat the best team, and couldn't. But in 2004, 9-3 Michigan won over 10-2 Iowa, and in 2000 8-4 Purdue went to the Rose Bowl over 9-3 Michigan, both without a championship games (and I'm sure someone who knows Big 10 history better than me could come up with better examples of weaker teams taking the division over stronger ones.) I'd say bad teams might even have a better chance of sneaking in without the division.

But all of that is moot to the larger point, which is that on the whole, it's harder to beat out 11 teams than it is to beat out 10.
 

FreakyDeke said:
Actually, if you look around, you're really the only person on the board (that's posted at least) that thinks this, so how is it "obviously incorrect"? Sorry, dude, you're wrong on this one, but I do find your persistence amusing.
Click to expand...

Being outnumbered and being wrong at the same time is, unfortunately, fairly common. But I don't have the head or inclination to actually do the math, so I guess I'll have to hope for someone with a calculator and 10 minutes to kill to come along and figure out the actual probabilities for me.
 

RedPoo said:
it's harder to beat out 11 teams than it is to beat out 10.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect. You would be 100% correct if we were throwing all 12 teams in one division, and the best record wins. However, that is not the case. As I said before, we are competing with 5 teams, plus in the event that we won the division, a 6th. On what planet is it easier to beat 11 teams than it is to beat 6?
 


dpodoll68 said:
On what planet is it easier to beat 11 teams than it is to beat 6?
Click to expand...

That's not the situation we're actually dealing with.
If you beat the 5-6 teams over 8 games, you have to play a 9th game against a good team.
If you beat (or tie) 10 teams over the same 8 games (with the potential of not playing the best teams at all) you can go straight to the Rose Bowl.

The answer to your question is Earth.
 

RedPoo said:
If you beat (or tie) 10 teams over the same 8 games (with the potential of not playing the best teams at all) you can go straight to the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

That's all there is to it? No doubt? Are you sure about this?

Someone alert the football office! How have they not stumbled upon this during the course of the last 43 years? It's so simple!
 

Bo Darville said:
This division set-up will actually help the Gophers win the Big Ten. All we have to do is get to the title game and get lucky. Way easier than going undefeated.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is win atleast 2 out of 3 in the division against Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska and then beat Ohio State or Penn State.
 

RedPoo said:
Being outnumbered and being wrong at the same time is, unfortunately, fairly common. But I don't have the head or inclination to actually do the math, so I guess I'll have to hope for someone with a calculator and 10 minutes to kill to come along and figure out the actual probabilities for me.
Click to expand...

Well, I asked teh Google and here’s what I found (Note, Wikipedia said the same thing). IMPORTANT NOTE TO KEEP IN MIND: Math is something I was only ok at in school and I could easily be misunderstanding what I'm reading.

If you click the link and scroll down to the section about "The And Rule" you'll find the following:
If outcomes A and B are independent, then the probability of B happening is not affected by whether A has happened...In the special case when A and B are independent, the AND rule simplifies to the following:
p(A Ç B) = p(A) x p(B)
Click to expand...
In our case we're looking for the probability that a team wins their division and then wins a conference championship game. These would be independent events as winning the division only affects who is in the title game, not the odds of winning the title. Winning the division is A and winning the championship game is B. So we want to take the probability of A and multiply it by the probability of B.
Probability of A = 1 in 6, which is 1/6
Probability of B = 1 in 2, which is 1/2
Probability of both A and B = 1/6 x 1/2, which is 1/12

Since the probability of 1 team winning in an 11 team Big Ten is 1 in 11, then winning in an 11 team Big Ten is more likely. HOWEVER, this assumes that every team has an equal chance of winning which we know to be extremely unlikely given the historical outcomes.

So I’m not sure that it would be easy to figure out overall. For instance, based on the historical strength of the teams the probability of winning the West division could be higher than 1 in 6 while the odds of winning the title game versus the East division team could be worse than 1 in 2. Or both could be worse. Or both could be better. Or they could be the same.

To make it more complex you’re then trying to compare it to the common odds of winning the Big Ten in the current format. This is complicated not only by historical strengths of the programs but by the unbalanced schedule.

What I’m saying is: the answers are so dependent on the variables that you could create scenarios under with either side is correct. So its all just opinion anyway, unless you want to assume (incorrectly) that every team has an equal chance of winning, at which point Red Poo would seem to be correct.

Can you tell that I’ve already checked out for my vacation that starts next week?
 



GoAUpher said:
Well, I asked teh Google and here’s what I found (Note, Wikipedia said the same thing). IMPORTANT NOTE TO KEEP IN MIND: Math is something I was only ok at in school and I could easily be misunderstanding what I'm reading.

If you click the link and scroll down to the section about "The And Rule" you'll find the following:

In our case we're looking for the probability that a team wins their division and then wins a conference championship game. These would be independent events as winning the division only affects who is in the title game, not the odds of winning the title. Winning the division is A and winning the championship game is B. So we want to take the probability of A and multiply it by the probability of B.
Probability of A = 1 in 6, which is 1/6
Probability of B = 1 in 2, which is 1/2
Probability of both A and B = 1/6 x 1/2, which is 1/12

Since the probability of 1 team winning in an 11 team Big Ten is 1 in 11, then winning in an 11 team Big Ten is more likely. HOWEVER, this assumes that every team has an equal chance of winning which we know to be extremely unlikely given the historical outcomes.

So I’m not sure that it would be easy to figure out overall. For instance, based on the historical strength of the teams the probability of winning the West division could be higher than 1 in 6 while the odds of winning the title game versus the East division team could be worse than 1 in 2. Or both could be worse. Or both could be better. Or they could be the same.

To make it more complex you’re then trying to compare it to the common odds of winning the Big Ten in the current format. This is complicated not only by historical strengths of the programs but by the unbalanced schedule.

What I’m saying is: the answers are so dependent on the variables that you could create scenarios under with either side is correct. So its all just opinion anyway, unless you want to assume (incorrectly) that every team has an equal chance of winning, at which point Red Poo would seem to be correct.

Can you tell that I’ve already checked out for my vacation that starts next week?
Click to expand...


Thanks for putting in the work. That's (about) what I was getting at. In the absence of specific knowledge about the conference rules and team placement, and the specifics of each teams relative strength and their schedules in a given season, we basically have to go with '12 is more than 11'.
 

marcus

I am going to have him review my portfolio. I thought Penn State was going to dominate the Big ten when they joined. How many Rose bowls do they have in their back pocket?
 


Question...would the Twins have a better chance of winning the World Series in a divisional or pre-divisional format?

The answer is divisional format of course. Having 2 divisions creates more of a "luck" factor where the best team doesn't have to win it all the time. You could be the 4th best team in the conference but if the top 3 are all in the other division you just need to get lucky in 1 game. Whereas in a single division you'd have to beat the 3 teams better than you which isn't nearly as likely.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
 



DarrenTheGreek said:
Question...would the Twins have a better chance of winning the World Series in a divisional or pre-divisional format?

The answer is divisional format of course. Having 2 divisions creates more of a "luck" factor where the best team doesn't have to win it all the time. You could be the 4th best team in the conference but if the top 3 are all in the other division you just need to get lucky in 1 game. Whereas in a single division you'd have to beat the 3 teams better than you which isn't nearly as likely.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Click to expand...

Its not hard. And I agree, in the scenario you describe the division system is a no-brainer. My point was if you were to try and look at how we'd fare historically (which is really the best way to do it since you're looking for trends) I'm not sure it matters much b/c like I said, this is an argument that anyone can win. That's because if you pick the optimum condition you can prove your point. The Gophers' historic mediocrity is a big part of why this isn't an immediate no-brainer if you look at it with preconditions. As others have noted, even the best team of the last decade (2003) wouldn't have won the division if all results remained the same. However, if/when the Gophers get past mediocre I fully agree that the divisional structure will likely provide a better road to winning the conference if the conference splits on East/West lines.
 

GoAUpher said:
Well, I asked teh Google and here’s what I found (Note, Wikipedia said the same thing). IMPORTANT NOTE TO KEEP IN MIND: Math is something I was only ok at in school and I could easily be misunderstanding what I'm reading.

If you click the link and scroll down to the section about "The And Rule" you'll find the following:

In our case we're looking for the probability that a team wins their division and then wins a conference championship game. These would be independent events as winning the division only affects who is in the title game, not the odds of winning the title. Winning the division is A and winning the championship game is B. So we want to take the probability of A and multiply it by the probability of B.
Probability of A = 1 in 6, which is 1/6
Probability of B = 1 in 2, which is 1/2
Probability of both A and B = 1/6 x 1/2, which is 1/12

Since the probability of 1 team winning in an 11 team Big Ten is 1 in 11, then winning in an 11 team Big Ten is more likely. HOWEVER, this assumes that every team has an equal chance of winning which we know to be extremely unlikely given the historical outcomes.

So I’m not sure that it would be easy to figure out overall. For instance, based on the historical strength of the teams the probability of winning the West division could be higher than 1 in 6 while the odds of winning the title game versus the East division team could be worse than 1 in 2. Or both could be worse. Or both could be better. Or they could be the same.

To make it more complex you’re then trying to compare it to the common odds of winning the Big Ten in the current format. This is complicated not only by historical strengths of the programs but by the unbalanced schedule.

What I’m saying is: the answers are so dependent on the variables that you could create scenarios under with either side is correct. So its all just opinion anyway, unless you want to assume (incorrectly) that every team has an equal chance of winning, at which point Red Poo would seem to be correct.

Can you tell that I’ve already checked out for my vacation that starts next week?
Click to expand...

Actually, the odds of winning the conference without divisions will be 1/12 starting in 2011, which is what you would have to compare this against.

First, it is really this simple: two teams at the end of the season will have a chance of winning the Big Ten Title. As it stands now, only one team, at the end of the season, has a chance of winning the Big Ten Title. Which is more likely, 1/12 or 2/12? The events aren't independent, so it isn't that simple, but that's basically where the numbers will lead you. Of course, in the 2/12 scenario only one team wins, and you're back to 1/12.

Now, consider that it is possible for a team, with divisional play, to go 3-5 and win the division. They then would have to beat one team from the other division, and they would be 4-5 and division champions. This should tell you without any doubt, that it is easier to win a conference title in a division format, particularly for teams that don't historically go undefeated. For your powerhouse teams, it becomes a trap game, another possible pitfall. It is easier to win a Big Ten Title in a divisional format. And I would suspect that once you considered the dependent variables, that this would show.
 

A divisional format benefits teams that aren't likely to have the best record. Take the 87 Twins, they wouldn't have had a chance if it wasn't for the divisions. But if it benefits some, it must be a detriment to others. A divisional format is a detriment to a team likely to have the best record. Take the Yankees, they often have or are near the best record. A divisional format means that they have to keep going up against challengers instead of just being awarded the title.
 

hyaluronic said:
Actually, the odds of winning the conference without divisions will be 1/12 starting in 2011, which is what you would have to compare this against.
Click to expand...
Obviously, but that wasn't the original argument. The original argument focused on whether it would be easier to win in an 11 team Big Ten w/o divisions rather than in a 12 team Big Ten w/ divisions.

hyaluronic said:
First, it is really this simple: two teams at the end of the season will have a chance of winning the Big Ten Title. As it stands now, only one team, at the end of the season, has a chance of winning the Big Ten Title. Which is more likely, 1/12 or 2/12? The events aren't independent, so it isn't that simple, but that's basically where the numbers will lead you. Of course, in the 2/12 scenario only one team wins, and you're back to 1/12.

Now, consider that it is possible for a team, with divisional play, to go 3-5 and win the division. The then would have to beat one team from the other division, and they would be 4-5 and division champions. This should tell you without any doubt, that it is easier to win a conference title in a division format, particularly for teams that don't historically go undefeated. For your powerhouse teams, it becomes a trap game, another possible pitfall. It is easier to win a Big Ten Title in a divisional format. And I would suspect that once you considered the dependent variables, that this would show.
Click to expand...

Again, when you pick those conditions of course it is easier. But would those conditions actually have existed if you used real seasons as a baseline? But you are completely correct that the divisional format does give teams with worse records a better shot at winning the Big Ten assuming the correct conditions are in place.
 

Before baseball went to divisional play, 100% of the time, the team with the best record in each league was crowned the champion, and went on top the World Series. Since then, they haven't.
 

GoAUpher said:
Obviously, but that wasn't the original argument. The original argument focused on whether it would be easier to win in an 11 team Big Ten w/o divisions rather than in a 12 team Big Ten w/ divisions.



Again, when you pick those conditions of course it is easier. But would those conditions actually have existed if you used real seasons as a baseline? But you are completely correct that the divisional format does give teams with worse records a better shot at winning the Big Ten assuming the correct conditions are in place.
Click to expand...

Okay - put it this way - a two division format essentially gives the lesser division a "double elimination" at a conference title. It is easier to win the conference title.

In a one division league, you must have a winning record to win the conference championship.

In a two division league, you can have a losing record, after the championship game, and win a conference championship.

The dependent variables that arise from the two division format make it easier to win a championship.
 

hyaluronic said:
Okay - put it this way - a two division format essentially gives the lesser division a "double elimination" at a conference title. It is easier to win the conference title.

In a one division league, you must have a winning record to win the conference championship.

In a two division league, you can have a losing record, after the championship game, and win a conference championship.

The dependent variables that arise from the two division format make it easier to win a championship.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. :) Which is why I don't mind the addition of Nebraska.
 

Unless our program takes off like a rocket, Nebraska's entry makes it tougher. They are building on defense and outplayed Texas last year. We would have to climb over Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa to win the division - a very tall order. We have lost 14 straight to Nebraska and that will continue.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Are you obtuse?

What is easier? Being the best of 11 teams or being the best of 6 plus one extra game?

Don't forget that you have toes too if you run out of fingers to count on.

(P.S. This is not even mentioning that the 3 most dominant teams (by far) since 1993 will almost certainly be in the other division.)
Click to expand...

This is stupid. how can it get easier adding nebraska. I see absoluetly zero ways. zero. You say we only have to deal with 5 other teams.. yeah them and the other teams from the east. Just cuz they will be from the east doesnt mean we will never face them. I assume we would face osu, mich, mich st and then rest every other year. And if and thats a big if we can do better then the five teams in our division including a tough Nebraska sqaud, thennnn we have to play some powerhouse from the east. The odds dont get better adding Nebraska. And this "championship game" is extra game we would have to play that the big10 championship team didnt have to play. And obviously its not just a push over team. its possibly OSU or PENN ST.. no1 easy..
 

The Gophers dont have much of a shot at a Big Ten title regardless of additions. It is a non-factor.
 

RedPoo said:
Umm...thought about it. Being the best of 11 teams is still easier than being the best of 12.
Click to expand...

Poo- don't listen to him. He is an 11 year old dbag. Well, he might be 12 but I know he is under 15 years old.
 

So potentially going to a division where Minnesota is the second largest state and the largest university is a bad thing for its conference championship hopes? If the divisions line up the way Marcus suggests, and no other additions are made, this is a DREAM scenario for Minnesota long term. We avoid the top 3 teams in OSU, Michigan, and Penn State and play with get the 4th team Nebraska. If any of those top 4 teams are going to become just a regular team, it will be Nebraska. Winning the west division at say 6-2 in the conference and getting a shot at OSU, Michigan, or Penn State on a neutral field isn't a bad thing at all. MUCH easier than going 7-1 in the conference as it is constructed currently.
 


I think you guys are getting to mathematical.. Lets dumb this down alittle. Big 10 menus Nebraska = a very good conference. Big 10 plus Nebraska = and even better conference. I just dont see how adding Nebraska to this conference makes it easier. Even with sub conferences. Can someone give me a few examples of avg or below avg teams winning their respected sub divisions and getting "lucky for one game" as i read from someone earlier in the thread and winning the conference title.
 

SPCPrice21 said:
Can someone give me a few examples of avg or below avg teams winning their respected sub divisions and getting "lucky for one game" as i read from someone earlier in the thread and winning the conference title.
Click to expand...

Big12 1996
Texas wins south with 6-2 record. Nebraska wins the north at 8-0 followed by COlorado at 7-1 and K-State at 6-2. Texas wins the Big12 Championship 37-27

SEC 2001
LSU ties in the west with 5-3 record, UT wins East outright with 7-1 record (ahead of FLorida with 6-2 record). LSU wins SEC Championship 31-20.

MAC 2001
Toledo wins west with 5-2 record. Marshall wins east with 8-0 record followed by Miami with 7-1. TOledo wins MAC Championship 41-36.

Big12 2003
K-State wins north with 6-2 record. OU wins south with 8-0 record followed by Texas at 7-1. K-State wins Big12 Championship 35-7.

SEC 2005
Georgia wins east with 6-2 record. LSU and Auburn tied for the west at 7-1 with Bama close behind at 6-2. Georgia wins SEC Championship over LSU 34-14.

MAC 2008
Buffalo wins east with 5-3 record. Ball State wins west with 8-0 record followed by Central Michigan and Western Michigan with 6-2 record. Buffalo wins MAC Championship 42-24.
 

Adding Nebraska to the Big "10" makes the Gophers even more irrelevant.
 

Adding a team that is better than the Gophers almost certainly makes it much harder for the Gophers to win the Big Ten.

Before the season starts, there is currently a 1/11 chance to win IF all teams are equal (but they ain't equal. Not even close. The last 40 years says the chance of picking the Gopher ticket out of the hopper is WAY less likely than picking some of the other tickets).

In a 12 team conference, there will be a 1/12 chance if all teams are equal. And again, they ain't equal. In fact, the Gophers chances get even worse than going from 1/11 to 1/12 because we added a program that is STRONGER than the Gophers.

But what about this two division thing? Doesn't that make it easier? Yes, but only CONDITIONAL upon the fact that you win one of the two divisions (before the season, everyone has the 1/12 chance. At the end of regular play the 2 champs have 1/2 chance). If the two divisions are well balanced the benefit of having to win fewer games to get to the Championship is almost certainly cancelled out by the addition of competition that is historically better than you.

The only way the 2 division thing helps is if the 2 divisions are lopsided. That is more 'good teams' in one and more 'bad teams' in the other. Then there's always a chance for a bad division champ to steal it at the end (see '87 and '91 Twins winning the American League). Obviously the good teams do NOT want to see that happen, and so will push HARD for balanced divisions.

...where the addition of a stronger opponent hurts you...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom